CASE REVIEW STUDY

A case review study report submitted to Manipal University

Jaipur in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of
the degree of BALLB(hons)

BY

Name- Daksh Choudhary

Registration no. 23FL10IAL00111

 SCHOOL OF LAW

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

JAIPUR -303007

RAJASTHAN, INDIA

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

JAIPUR – 303 007 (RAJASTHAN), INDIA

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled CASE REVIEW STUDY is a record of the
bonafide work done by Daksh Choudhary (registration no- 23FL10IAL00111) Submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of BALLB(hons) in the school of
law of Manipal University Jaipur, during the academic year of 2022-23.

Dr. Sunita Singh Khatana

Project guide(department of law)

Manipal University Jaipur

Dr. Sony Kulshrestha

Head, department of law

Manipal University Jaipur

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I EXPRESS A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE AND INDEBTEDNESS TO OUR TEACHERS

UNDER WHOSE GUIDANCE, VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS, CONSTANT ENCOURAGEMENT
AND KIND SUPERVISION THE PRESENT RESEARCH WORK WAS CARRIED OUT. I AM
ALSO GRATEFUL TO THE COLLEGE FACULTY OF LAW FOR THEIR FEEDBACK AND
FOR KEEPING US ON SCHEDULE.

I WOULD LIKE CONVEY MY HEARTFELT THANKS TO MY FRIENDS WHO HELPED

DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY GIVING THEIR VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS
 Table of content

1.Name of the case

2. Citations of the case

3. Date of the judgement

4. Names of the judges

5. Issues

6. Facts

7. Arguments

8. Decision

9. Conclusion
 CASE REVIEW STUDY

Name of the case - Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

Citations of the case - 1976 AIR 376 1976 SCR (2) 122 1976 SCC (1) 311

Name of the petitioner – Shri Krishan

Name of the respondent – The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

Date of judgment – 17/11/1975

Name of the Judges – Justice Fazalali, Syed Murtaza; Justice Khanna, Hans Raj;
Justice Bhagwati, P.N.

Issue - Did the appellant committed fraud by not disclosing that he was short of
attendance to the University?
 Facts
 The appellant was a teacher in the Government High School, Dumarkha in
the District of Jind(Haryana).
 The respondent organised evening classes for 3-year LLB aspirants who
were in Service.
 The appellant used the opportunity and joined LLB Part I in 1971.
 The University gives a student of the Faculty of Law, the option to clear
certain subjects in which he may have failed at one of the examinations
before completing the three years course.
 Every year student has to give 6 papers and in 1972 the appellant failed
in 3 of these papers.
 Afterwards, he was promoted to Part II which he joined in 1972.
 The annual examination for Part II was to be held on May 19, 1973 and on
April 26, 1973 the appellant applied for his Roll No. from university to
clear the 3 papers in which he failed earlier, but the university refused
without any reason.
 The appellant approached the University for granting him provisional
permission to appear subject to his getting the permission from his
employer to attend the Law Faculty.
 In between the appellant had been prosecuted for offence under Section
376, 366 and 363 I.P.C. and was suspended during the period when the
case was going on against him.
 The appellant was, however, acquitted and was reinstated by his
employer on August 22, 1972. It implies that on the date of application of
Roll No. there was no charge against the appellant.
 On May 18, 1973 the appellant wrote a letter to the University giving an
undertaking that if he was not able to get the requisite permission from
his employer to join the Law Classes, he would abide by any order that
the University may pass.
 On basis of above undertaking he was allowed to take Part II papers.
 On June 20, 1973 the appellant wrote to the University that the condition
on which he was to get the permission was not at all necessary and that
his results may now be announced.
 On June 26, 1973 the respondent informed appellant that due to low
attendance your candidature is cancelled.
 Then the appellant and defendant had a lot of arguments for permission
to appear in Part III papers and then the appellant filed an appeal to Vice
Chancellor of the University which was rejected.
 After that, the appellant filed a writ of certiorari against order of university
to cancel candidature of appellant, but the High Court rejected the
petition.
 Hence the appeal was filed in SC.

Arguments
Arguments raised by appellant

 It was argued that since the appellant was allowed to appear in L.L.B. Part
II Examination his candidature could not be withdrawn, in view of the
mandatory provisions of clause 2(b) of the Kurukshetra University
Calendar Vol. I, ordinance X under which the candidature could be
withdrawn before the candidate took the examination.
 It was argued that the order of the University was mala fide because the
real reason for cancelling the candidature of the appellant was the
insistence of the District Education officer that the appellant should not
have been admitted to the Law Faculty unless he had obtained the
permission of his superior officers. Thus, it is clear that university can only
cancel the candidature if the appellant’s candidature was cancelled before
giving the exam

Arguments raised by respondent

 The respondents contended that since the appellant was involved in a

criminal case a result the head of organization of appellant was not able to
give a good moral character certificate i.e. essential for admission.
 It was also contended that the appellant had a low attendance in the Part
I i.e. he can’t be admitted to Part II Examination of the course.
 They contended that since the evening course was to benefit the member
of service and it was necessary for appellant to obtain permission of his
superior officer which he was unable to get; it is well within the rights of
the University to refuse permission to enter Part II of exam.
 It was also contended that the appellant was aware that his attendance
was low and yet he did not draw the attention of the University authorities
when he applied for admission to appear in LL.B. Part II Examination. Thus,
the appellant was guilty of committing fraud.

DECISION
The admission form of appellant was sent in December of 1971 for the
examinations to be conducted in April-May of 1971. The court stated that if
neither the university nor the head of department of law were able to fulfil their
duty to scrutinize the form in 5-6 months’ time period and; check that all
essential documents and essential conditions have been fulfilled by the
appellant. The question that appellant tried to commit fraud does not arise and
stated that: “It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is
in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was
neither a case of suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri.”

The court based its judgment on “Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. Vice-
Chancellor, Ravishankar University, Raipur and others[1].”

The appeal was allowed and the order of university was quashed by writ of
certiorari and the respondent was directed to release Part II result and to allow
the appellant to give Part III examination as well as 3 papers of Part I in which the
appellant failed

"From the provisions of ordinance Nos. 19 and 48 it is clear that the scrutiny as
to the requisite attendance of the candidates is required to be made before the
admission cards are issued. Once the admission cards are issued permitting the
candidates to take their examination, there is no provision in Ordinance No. 19 or
ordinance No. 48 which would enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw the
permission. The discretion having been clearly exercised in favour of the
petitioner by permitting him to appear at the examination, it was not open to the
Vice-Chancellor to withdraw that permission subsequently and to withhold his
result."Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. Vice-Chancellor, Ravishankar
University, Raipur and othersAIR 1967 MP 194
 CONCLUSION

 It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is

committed is in a position to discover the truth by due
diligence, fraud is not proved.
 The Supreme Court held that there was no fraud since the
candidate kept silent as to certain facts and that the university
authorities could have discovered the truth with ordinary diligence.
In the above mentioned case where a student kept silent with
respect to the shortage of his attendance which would make him
ineligible to appear for the university exams, it was held that mere
silence does not amount to fraud.